I did read Sam Harris' book, 'The End of Faith,' and liked it very much. In fact, we own it. There is also a documentary in which Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, and Dawkins discuss atheism, and this one is well worth watching, if you can find it. I especially like Harris, though, because he is a little more accepting of that which we don't understand than the others, who just dismiss anything they cannot prove with hard science.

I really like Harris's approach. As you indicate, he seems more open to the possibility that what we call the paranormal might eventually provide evidence of some sort of spiritual beings existing.

I like Daniel Dennett's writing style almost as much as Harris's.

While I've enjoyed Hitchens' wit, he's typically too caustic for me, although his book on Mother Teresa was spot-on, I thought. (Its title alone still gives me a smile--The Missionary Position.)

That fact that even intelligent, sensible people refer to the paranormal as 'freako' and 'woo-woo' shows what low regard this sort of thing is given in mainstream culture. And this is such a shame, because there is a huge body of evidence supporting it in all its forms.

I've read so many books dealing with various paranormal subjects by so many reputable authors over the years that I always find it astounding that anybody would doubt that there are forces in the universe that are beyond our understanding.

Same here, although when I was active in the Unitarian Universalist church, I did enjoy referring to myself as a "woo-woo UU" when discussing what my specific beliefs are. < grin > UU's are generally such rationalists that I found it rather fun to tweak them by identifying myself as such. The question, "How is it that such an obviously intelligent woman as yourself can believe in that stuff?" got beyond tiresome, though.

:::::: scribbles down the titles that Solf mentioned ::::: Oh, goody! More books to read (as if I needed any encouragement!)

Eating red meat every day will raise your risk of diabetes. Processed meat is worse. And they're talking about habitual consumption. If you replace that serving of red meat with nuts or grains, your risk is lowered.

So we schmooze a little. Like that's a crime already? There are some nice people posting in this thread, and I, for one, enjoy getting to know them a little better. So sue me.

A LITTLE?

This thread has gone for pages now not even talking on the topic of deiabetes, mich less mat and diabetes.

We have a nice DMZ thread for the social schmoozing, where we can get to know each other a little better, and the political, agenda-driven sniping is supposed to be off limits. Trouble is - nobody uses it.

We have a very large, fat family. We have a lot of folks who smoke. We have some thin folks who smoke and eat red meat. We have fat folks that smoke and eat red meat. Everyone eats red meat except me. NONE of us have diabetes. That is about 75 different family members. NO ONE has diabetes. As far as "situational" diabetes, there is no evidence that there are not genes involved there as well. It may be different genes but it has not been ruled out that there is a genetic component to "situational" diabetes. Our family has NO diabetes and we have plenty of folks who are morbidly obese. I was tested for diabetes because I am very fat at the moment. My blood sugar was perfect. My triglycerides are perfect. My cholesterol is perfect. My blood pressure is perfect. That is true for my entire family.

Just because one family of obese people who stuff themselves on fatty meats, smoke like chimneys, and never get enough exercise doesn't have any diabetics in it does NOT mean that all the scientific research that has been done can simply be dismissed as irrelevant.

We have a very large, fat family. We have a lot of folks who smoke. We have some thin folks who smoke and eat red meat. We have fat folks that smoke and eat red meat. Everyone eats red meat except me. NONE of us have diabetes. That is about 75 different family members. NO ONE has diabetes. As far as "situational" diabetes, there is no evidence that there are not genes involved there as well. It may be different genes but it has not been ruled out that there is a genetic component to "situational" diabetes. Our family has NO diabetes and we have plenty of folks who are morbidly obese. I was tested for diabetes because I am very fat at the moment. My blood sugar was perfect. My triglycerides are perfect. My cholesterol is perfect. My blood pressure is perfect. That is true for my entire family.

Hi appy,

Genetic predisposition certainly comes into play in so many cases of diabetes. My husband was insulin-dependant the last ten years of his life. Pasta was a taboo--much more dangerous than moderate portions of red meat. His physician was the head of internal medicine at Piedmont !! My father-in-law was diabetic, too.